The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution protects “any person” (not just US citizens) from being “deprived of life . . . without due process of law.”
.
Until the 9/11 attacks, the legal position was unambiguous: in war, active combatants could kill and be killed, subject to rules governing surrender and the use of banned weapons. But the ‘law of war’ applied only to conflicts between armed forces of opposing states, invoking the right of self-defence. Confrontations with insurgents and terrorists were strictly governed by human rights law, which requires state use of force to be reasonable in the circumstances. This ‘reasonable force’ requirement invokes a necessary and human restraint over soldiers’ actions and, as a direct extension, must surely apply to drone targeters. The rule of war is not being adhered to in places where drones are operating as “suspects” are being killed without much compunction.
.
The states that deploy drones argue that they are operating under war law, where human rights are less relevant. The US argues that it is in an ‘armed conflict with al-Qaeda . . . and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence . . . including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning to attack us.’ However, this statement prompts many questions. For instance, how can you have an ‘armed conflict’ without an enemy state? Or, what criteria is being used for putting names on the secret death list or what is the required degree of proof before suspects are targeted and killed?
.
There are no accountability mechanisms for the use of drones – no inquests, and often not even a casualty list which is a direct contravention of the normal rules of war and engagement. The US does, though, announce and celebrate when it hits a ‘high-value target’.
.
In aerial drone warfare, there is no fairness or due process to enable potential victims, their relatives or any outside body to challenge the accuracy of the information on which the targeting decisions have been made.
.
Some analysts may suggest that drone strikes are an exercise in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But Article 51 applies only to attacks by other states, not by terrorist groups. Yet, what is becoming increasingly of concern is that the record of drone attacks demonstrates that very often individuals are targeted when they constitute no clear or present danger.
.
Drone killings in tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen have taken the lives of targets who are armed and who presented a clear danger, but others have merely been attending weddings or funerals or emerging from hospitals or mosques. ‘Decapitation strikes’ in Pakistan have resulted in families being killed by mistake and which have severely damaged US relations with a politically tense and nuclear-armed nation that is not at war with the US.
.
American officials also say that the Fifth Amendment could not avail a US citizen who joined an enemy force. This is correct as far as it goes, but the Fifth Amendment must entitle a citizen or his family to know whether he is on a death list and to apply to have himself taken off it.
.
Those who press the Hellfire buttons in Nevada do not pause to consider whether their targets are engaged in combatant missions or not. The criteria for drone use are covert CIA prerogatives, beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

Could you please forward that piece to the New York Times and Washington Post? For months they carried front page stories about enhanced interrogation techniques performed on a handful of people as though everyone involved should be prosecuted for war crimes. Whether or not you agreed with those techniques, they were not even in the same universe as the serial murder that is occurring in this administration. The silence from those who were so sanctimonious is deplorable.

see reply to 19:31 post re legal status of US citizens who are enemy combatants.
Your points are reasonable. However, there is clearly an armed conflict in progress when there are 75,000 US troops deployed. The US Congress has authorized funding. A war is in progress & attacks are being made by forces based in Pakistan border areas. This is a context where US law & Geneva Conventions are applicable without ambiguity. Use of aerial bombardment that makes no distinction between combatants & non-combatants is authorized to bomb a bridge, a port, a factory, etc. Under these circumstances drones are preferable to alternatives that entail many more deaths. Yemen is somewhat different.

A declaration of war is not necessary for a state of war to exist in terms of the applicability of the Geneva convention. In the US, Congress has the option to end a war initiated by the President as Commander in Chief by defunding it, as in the case of the Vietnam war. The post to which I replied is legalistic & I have attempted to clarify those issues. There are many other aspects of warfare but I'm trying to be brief & stay on topic. If you wanted to consider the the morality of war we would be talking about St. Thomas Aquinas.

NYT and WP are lamestream liberal rags but even they are capable of seeing the big the profoundly false premise of Mark Dowe's long rant... or should I call it a big lie?
.
He writes: "Confrontations with insurgents and terrorists were strictly governed by human rights law" - they were not. More over, Geneva conventions didn't and don't cover insurgents, terrorists and spies. In war, they were summarily executed.
.
So, dear Mark, nice try, but you failed. Tough!

I am not sure I need to respond on behalf of Mark, however, thank you for further proving my point. The NYT and WP were wringing their hands over pouring some water up the noses of those "insurgents and terrorists" but they are not quite so bothered about blowing them up. It is not the drones, it is the hypocrisy - that was my point.

Drones or no drones, the premise of Mark's post is a lie - human rights don't rule conflagrations with insurgents and terrorists. As far as hypocrisy is concerned, here is a mighty example from his rant again: "how can you have an ‘armed conflict’ without an enemy state?" Very easily: if you have an armed enemies, you have an armed conflict with them.
.
Though I wouldn't reproach him very strongly for that. Hypocrisy is like sunset and down, winter and summer... it just is.

Likening the contest with terrorists and insurgents to a conflagration is just typical US hyperbole with antecedence in the world of wrestling rather than studied halls of academia.

By its military’s own repeated assertion, it is not equated with conventional war but is instead an asymmetrical struggle with various armed groups and insurgents drawn from a cross spectrum of causes, allegiances and theatres, most of which are conflated with Al Qaeda in order to justify targeting, just as in earlier times when many nationalist anti-colonial insurgencies, finding themselves in contest with US power abroad, were characterised as part of the 'global communist threat'.

Unfortunately for the majority of the world’s people, the US now feels its law is international law and its jurisdiction the world. It pays lip service to the international rule of law while excluding itself from the jurisdiction of international law courts.

Like Israel, it has re-defined the very notion of national self defence. Whereas most reasonable people regard it as the right to resist the invasion of the home territories by hostile forces, the US has, born of imperial necessity, redefined it as the right of defence of extra-national political, strategic and military policy in pursuit of national self interest.

Wherever in the world it goes or whatever country it invades becomes, by virtue of its representatives presence, synonymous with US national territory, allowing it to define suppression of local resistance to its armies of occupation as national self defence.

Thus the history of unequal, one sided wars followed by bloody decade long colonial occupations, as in the Philippines, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, in which drones are but the latest tools used to target resistance, reclassified as terrorism.

The causes of conflict remain; it's just the contemporised rhetoric and the sophistication of the weaponry that changes.

America has lost its moral code. The gloves are off...take no prisoners. The world holds its leaders in disgust and loathing. Its people choose NOT to reign in its military and now share this contempt and horror. ONLY FINANCIAL collapse will end this reign of terror on the world. THIS country is BANKRUPT! BUT the other worldly KINGS and Princes of nation states who depend on this 'toilet paper world currency' will keep up this charade as long as possible.
To the other 99% move all your funds to the Credit Union system...the banks will fail. Buy farmland before the corporation own all the best...block by block...neighbourhood by neighbourhood form co-ops to provide your basic needs to survive the coming storm. Together we will rebuild a fair and just society.

I hope the so called “international community" will accept that the other countries will have the same right to kill their own suspects (using drones) trying to overthrow their own Governments such as China, India, and even Syria (why not?)??? Or when it comes to that situation the West will suddenly remember international law!!! West will call it as a violation of international law and war crime. If American President can call killing its own as legal then so can Assad of Syria? Unless of course the international community has double standards - one for West and one for the rest - JINRAJ JOSHIPURA

If you declare war on my country I will take you at your word and treat you as an enemy combatant. Somali citizen, American citizen, Pakistani citizen; it's all the same to me.
Given a choice between sending a sweaty American soldier out to kill our enemies in nasty parts of the world where he is sure to get dysentery or at least crotch rot, and sending drones controlled by Americans sitting safely in air conditioned trailers hundreds of miles away, I'll choose the drones every time.
I've been the sweaty American soldier far from home, and I still shiver at some of what I went through. I suspect that about 100% of military veterans agree with me.
And civilian casualties: We're dealing with enemies who use human shields, often including their own families. That's horrible. But it's their choice, and as long as they do it there will be civilian casualties, but not as many as THEY cause by intentionally killing civilians in order to terrorize us (although it doesn't; it just makes us angry).

I'd say most U.S. people have given up on getting Muslim-dominated theocracies or terror bands to like us. I've traveled to several middle east countries and heard horrible lies about the U.S. and Israel spouted as truth. Being a realist, I accept the fact that a lot of these people believe nonsense about us and are going to hate us no matter what we do.

Since that seems to be the case, we might as well make sure they fear us and hesitate to attack us due to fear of retaliation.

Or do you have a magic plan to make everybody love the United States of America? If you do, I'd love to hear it and will be sure to pass it on to my Congressman.

"...is the country made safer when enemies are killed, or when they are taken alive?" As if we normally have both options. We don't, and for the same reason that, in a conventional shooting war, it sometimes happens that we kill enemy combatants rather than taking them prisoner: they fight back and won't give up.

War from the sky offers fewer opportunities (none, really) for taking prisoners. When it is not possible to have boots on the ground, the options narrow to two: kill, or be killed. Not that those hit by drones can kill any of us then and there, but they're working on it, they've brought it off before, and if not stopped, they'll bring it off again.

Drones are killings many times more civilians than terrorists and many many times less than terrorists have killed but 75% or more Americans approve it and 100% elected law makers like it. Of course Obama love it. But so far it has killed only Muslims around the globe, and that too Americans like it. But if other nations including terrorists will get this technology and start killings their enemies; similarly America is killing on bare perception, what will happens to the civilized world? Is this drones killings is better than rendition, torturing and killings without fair justice? Does America got this license from the U.N.Human rights Commission, or does not need?

Perhaps you could provide some reliable source for your statement that the drone attacks have killed "many more civilians than terrorists have killed." That statement is absurd on its face. I suspect that at least 75% of American's are not against surgical drone strikes that target terrorists, even when some innocent civilians are injured or killed. Regrettable, but when you use civilians, dress in civilian garb, hide in civilian areas, surprise!, civilians will be harmed. We do everything practically possible to avoid injuring civilians which is much more than the policy of deliberately killing civilians to enhance the terror in terrorist.

There seems to be a lack of continuity in the article. Is the hoopla about the targeted killing of American citizens (by any means), the use of UAVs, or the use of UAVs by a nonmilitary organization?
The targeted killings of American citizens seem to go completely against the spirit and the explicit language of due process stated and implied in the 5th and 14th amendments: "..deprive LIFE, liberty,..."
UAVs themselves are no more deadly for a civilian population than any other vehicle that drops bombs or fires rockets and missiles. They are just more efficient and cost effective. The fact that the enemy is cowardly enough to hide amongst civilians has created a need for hyper-accurate weapon systems like those found, not only on UAVs, but on many military aircraft. With no surprise people insist on labeling "evil" a weapon rather than discussing the nature and circumstances when and why that weapon is used. This is an insurgent conflict. There are no uniformed rifleman lines. The bad guys who continually attack civilian targets around the world use their neighbors for concealment. What other options are there?

The Supreme Court has ruled that US citizens who have taken up arms against the US are enemy combatants that are not entitled to Constitutional protections. Some US citizens joined the German army in both WW1 & WW2. So the issue is whether a planner is a combatant (the citizen issue having been resolved). There is a court case in progress brought by Alawi's father that will resolve that. So far, I believe, the answer is that a planner is a combatant. Appeals pending.

What court of law was this evidence presented in of taking up arms and planner and all this? Heresay? Yes. Summary execution of citizens is the antithesis of the framer's intentions. A trial for treason? Decimation in war, but the only thing that would make your supposition true is a legal representation of evidence, some trial in absentia or some record demonstrating a due process to take an american life with clear rights under the 5th, 6th and 1st amendment to speak his mind freely and be charged in a trial with evidence and a jury. And what is the excuse for murdering his son? He might grow up to be a bad guy some day? People will bend over backwards to apologize the inexcusable.

What's the difference between a declared and an undeclared war? Is a declared war fairer than an undeclared war simply because a majority in Congress said "Aye" to the former? If Americans fighting on the side of an enemy in a declared war are fair target in a battle, why not those who side with terrorists in an undeclared war? Congress may claim that the Constitution gives it the authority to declare war. But the Jihadists have declared such a war against America and won’t care for Congressional declaration or lack of it. The President is tasked with keeping Americans safe, not members of Congress, who will complain regardless of what approach the President takes.

The senators expressing horror at the drone killings had no problem declaring a needless war on Iraq when Iraq was not threatening the US at all. On the other hand, the drones are killing those who swear to do just that - kill innocent Americans. And countries where the Jihadists lurk are either unwilling (Pakistan) or unable (Somalia, Yemen, Mali) to control them.

Bush had warned that America would take the war to the terrorists. He was right. Let a thousand drones fly!

The declared war is when there is enough time for all to stay in the houses as there is enough time given . Read on the Fall and Rise Of The Third Reich By William Shyere . He has spoken on the WW when Germany was very much involved with the atrocities of Hitler . Hitler had one notion , "Every Clerk is a Jew and every Jew is a clerk". Tha idea got him very upset and he went to war. This was a known fact as UK and USA prepared to counter attack and save their populace lives . The new IT is the new war. A button and you have drones. lots of bombs with pins , nails, gases that explode in your vicinity and no one is aware. 9/11 was the attack of unknown on the USA ( Of course this was know but ignored) That is the difference . The new IT is that speaks little and does more damage I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

I agree. However war itself involves considerable compartmentalization, so it's not self-evident that contamination occurs. Chaplains serve in the military & continue to believe "thou shalt not kill". The institution of the Church, it's teachings & cannon law seem unaffected. The possibility of war-time practices degrading the civil legal system is a significant concern. But it is far from inevitable.

It's war. People die. Get over it. The lot of you are a bunch of hypocrites. You don't want to see American troops die by the truckload, but you also don't want to see citizens die because they were in the line of fire. Also you don't want to be kidnapped abroad because every extremist Islamist in the East wants to see Americans die because they are infidels according to the Qur'an. You can pick 2, but you can't have all 3.

A war without end that encompasses the entire world? That's not war, that's life. If you want to live a life where one man decides whether you live or die without query, oversight, or appeal, then you wish to live in a totalitarian state.
I wish to live in America, where the fourth and fifth amendment protect me from such tyranny. And I will not let some terrorist (who's less of a risk to me and other Americans than a lightning strike) scare me into taking a hacksaw to the constitution that so many people died to defend.
You call us hypocrites, but you sir are a coward who would gladly slit liberty's throat for the illusion of protection from the bogeyman.

Not the entire world, just countries that are either unable or unwilling to police their population in a meaningful way to prevent them from exporting their jihad to civilized nations.

The Constitutional protections you refer to do not apply to foreign nationals, especially those fighting the US nor does it apply to US Citizens who have turned traitor & are actively in league with enemy combatants killing other US citizens.
If targets were truly indiscriminately chosen then I may agree with you but there is no evidence that this is the case.

Well first one could just use logic to know they the US Constitution doesn't reach into giving protection to foreign nationals outside of the US or traitors to the US but if that isn't good enough there is plenty of case law interpreting the same of the Constitution & being a common law country case law = what the Constitution says.

Oh sure. Let's forget all about 9/11, let us stick our heads deep into the sand, pull out of every theater of the world where AQ operates and give them all the time and space they want to carefully plan and execute their next catastrophic attack. Did you know the bigger of the two bombs that went off in Bali was a thermobaric device? Hardly your garden variety truck bomb. One doesn't put those together without guidance from scientists & engineers. They ARE WMDs. So what's next? You are more afraid of a lightning bolt than "some terrorist?" I'd like to hear your opinion after taking your family to a ballgame or a concert, only to find yourself and half the city you're in vaporized by "some terrorist."

I don't view you as a hypocrite (yet), but that's probably because I don't know you well enough. I do, however, view you as extraordinarily naive. Ultra-naive, in fact.

Oh sure. Let's forget all about 9/11, let us stick our heads deep into the sand, pull out of every theater of the world where AQ operates and give them all the time and space they want to carefully plan and execute their next catastrophic attack. Did you know the bigger of the two bombs that went off in Bali was a thermobaric device? Hardly your garden variety truck bomb. One doesn't put those together without guidance from scientists & engineers. They ARE WMDs. So what's next? You are more afraid of a lightning bolt than "some terrorist?" I'd like to hear your opinion after taking your family to a ballgame or a concert, only to find yourself and half the city you're in vaporized by "some terrorist."

I don't view you as a hypocrite (yet), but that's probably because I don't know you well enough. I do, however, view you as extraordinarily naive. Ultra-naive, in fact.

"A Brennan-led CIA is likely to try to move away from the business of running a global paramilitary air force as well as detention sites, with the Pentagon taking over many of those duties."
Shouldn't CIA be led by the president? And therefore, he's to be held accountable for what CIA does? Let's not confuse things about who makes the decisions.

Btw, I do appreciate the precise wording of Lexington here, when he writes "the current president has greatly expanded the use of unmanned drones to track and kill terror suspects and militants." Because in American media, a terror suspect equals a terrorist. It seems, Magna Carta is still intact in the UK.

I'm upset. The panel of Republican and Democrats talked nauseously about the past and Bush's stuff.

I really wanted some Senator to ask serious questions about Drones and future practices. For instance: The ACLU has already published facts that the FBI and DEA are using Drones in America. Does the CIA get that information? Are they helping? Are those drones armed? Are they using intrusive infra-Red devices that go through walls? Who are they used against while searching? We know CIA drones are armed. Will Drones be armed here in America? Could they be used by FBI to kill an American terrorist under orders from CIA? Nobody spent real time here. The questioning was out of date and sophomoric.

It truly seems that these forums are dominated by people with no idea of the reality of life. Obama does not order drone strikes because he is evil, he does so because he wants to help Americans and because he wants peace and world stability. If its between you and the President as to who knows how to preserve world security and preserve justice the best, I choose the president.

Oh, as long as it's Obama, but if it was Bush, you would feel quite differently. You sound like one of those zombie's from some second rate dystopian novel made into a movie played on Saturday afternoon when we were all kids. This doesn't make for a safer world, just unsafe for a less defined group of people.

Your emotional appeal contains no substance. For a start I also approved Bush's drone and missile strikes - it was a good policy. You can insert Bush in there instead of Obama and I would still be quite happy to make the same statement.

In some way you are right though. The world is now an unsafe place for terrorists. With the constant whine of drones filling the air, community leaders will hopefully soon start dealing with these people themselves and we will see more village justice, less terrorism and less drone strikes. They have nowhere to hide now!

"preserve world stability and justice"...are you for real?! the only way that America can contribute to the preservation of security and the achievement of justice is to stay out of it! The peace in the Middle East would have been reality for decades now!

Iraq shows something of a decline thankfully, but then again they were not terrorists to start with (until we invaded) and the decline has to do with functioning government as opposed to drones blowing people up IMO.

So here is the problem. Your argument is incorrect. I'd wager that drone strikes undermine legitimate local government and consequently the long term stability that will lead to actual peace.

It is impossible to accurately measure whether drone strikes slowed an increasing trend or added to it but the logic and the argument are sound. I am glad that people like you are nowhere near government as people in govt need to make hard decisions, including ordering drone strikes that the rest of us may balk at but benefits us all.

The constitution is still there allowing you to whine about it all you like because decisions like that continue to be made.

Your argument isn't sound because you can't show evidence to back it up.

The constitution is there to define the rights of us all including the ability to whine as you characterize it. It also requires due process which the drone strikes are not following. What is being done is unconstitutional.

Yes people in government must make hard decisions. But they do so knowing that such decisions may be weighed according to our laws. Oversight of government officials is necessary for a functioning democracy. It seems you want to suspend that oversight when it suits you.

Let me ask you this: If the government started operating drones over your neighbourhood with the intent of "taking down burglers/muggers/murderers", would you be ok with that ? Would you be assured that some remote pilot thousands of miles away could always determine guilt and innocence so easily and accurately? Would you be happy if the criteria for guilt and innocence were in a secret memo and could be tweaked to suit the circumstances ?

Due process is not required for enemy combatants, your argument is therefore silly.

If there were people in my area that were intent on murdering me that could be stopped with a drone then I would be more than happy for a drone to hang around.

Drone strike opportunities are very small ones. It is a good idea to develop some processes but it is logistically impossible to try ever enemy combatant before killing them. Also it is no coincidence that drones operate in areas where the rule of law is not respected.

Oh wait I forgot we are not at war with Afganistan or its people and the criteria for who gets a drone strike is secret and can be changed any time a high ranking administration official gets indigestion. Hence we presumably know they must be enemy combatants because Brennan has a magic crystal ball.

So you'd be ok with drone strikes in your area that killed innocent people at least 25% of the time ? because that is the most optimistic estimates I've seen. What if they hit someone you cared about what would your reaction be then ? Would you still pontificate (as you have here) about it being for the greater good ?

It is true when Stalin said. "One death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic". He was reminding us that evil starts when we substitute counting for caring.

That they have been accepted as enemy combatants is enough for me.
It is a necessary evil and it does more good than harm, that too is enough for me.
As technology increases that 25% number will trail to (but never reach) zero.

Omricon, you are so naive. The collateral damage will never fall to zero. The collateral damage is half the point of the policy: to terrorize communities that tend to harbor terrorists by killing their families. Israel even has a spin name for collective punishment policies of this sort ("price tag"). From your other posts it sounds like you're well on your way to accepting this despicable practice, though this post makes it obvious you're conflicted about it.
--
Also, if you think a bit you'll probably understand that counterterrorism measures cannot possibly be an efficient way to save lives, relative to other ways one could spend one's energy.
So don't be a sucker and imagine the authorities care so much about terrorism for that reason.
They care because it makes their political lives difficult. Are you sure you want to shred the constitution and blow up innocents for that?

Funny, most of the comments here would seem to prefer us to go back to indiscriminent firebombing of villages or cities (see Dresden or Tokyo for example) rather then use something that attempts to minimize collateral damage outside of the targeted persons being harbored therein.

Indeed. There is no geographical enemy and therefore the rules of warfare have changed. When the terrorist cowards hiding among civilians stop waging war on the west then they can sleep safely in their beds.

No. We are at war with a defined type of people & are this targeting those individuals & the drone attacks are a more civilized way to kill those individuals while trying to contain the damage rather then indiscriminately leveling the whole village harboring them to accomplish that same goal.

No you are not. The only war that has supposedly been declared is the "War on Terror". That in and of itself is stupid. You can't fight a technique (terrorism).
Congress didn't declare war on the individuals or groups being targeted. Therefore we are not at war.

Interesting argument that of terrorism as a "technique". I would imagine this technique is the sum of many: hiding, attacks on civilians, children and generally other no no targets, planning attacks, procuring materials to execute such attacks, spying to find appropriate targets, budgeting and fund raising, providing support to other individuals sharing the same goals.
Ok, so if terrorism was a "technique", every single bullet planted in the skull of an individual enganging in any of the activies above would be a fair and just one. Any single drone that would wipe shooters and supporters would be a fair and a just one.

I guess my comment will not be really popular. IMHO the Geneva convention, like prior attempts at legiferation of conflict, rest on a fundamental principle of RECIPROCITY.

One (hors de combat) part shall not caue harm to children, hospitals, transports, etc etc BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION the other party does the same. In other words there must be mutual consent. Something that remains much more violent than boxe or other sports, but still based on the assumption that both fighters will resist embarking in no no violence and annhilitaion of the other.

Yet, Terrorists do not allow for reciprocity: they attack harmless people and the shield themselves behind their innocent neighbours, wife and children. Whether their strategy is rational is another subject: forces at play are so disproportionate they face arguably the only course of action.

Still that does not put ANY legal or moral bound on the more powerful and OFFENDED party. Thus, like the old Admiral Fisher rightly taught us: "hit first, hit hard, keep hitting". So we should keep droning out terrorists until it is necessary.

It actually doesn't. In WWII the allies upheld a standard of conduct with no guarantee whatsoever that it would be reciprocated by the Nazis. Two of the big practical reasons that the Army is so opposed to torture is that it provides both terrible intel and dangerous PR.

Americans have no idea what they are doing. They have lost themselves and are ruining their own country and freedoms as a result of 911. America is anti-democratic in the world and are creating more terrorists and extremism.
It seems more and more likely that conspiracies are not conspiracies if this is the end result.
Otherwise, Americans lost the war on terror before it was even started, especially since they keep making own goals.www.openfreedom.eu

Gen Stanley Mc Chrystal, born into the military, spent his life in the military, and for years head of JSOC, strongly criticised for his brutal and hardcore treatment of the enemy while in that unaccountable role. He is not a man of fear.
Yet he is fearful that the use of drones is making more enemies than the US will be able to handle. He is right.
Once I was an adoring fan of Pres Kennedy, and lover of anything American. The Bushes, your use of drones and detention without trial (Manning and many others in Gitmo), has caused that support from me to wither and die.
I am just one. But we are many.

"The occasional hapless bystander" are you serious? Drone attacks are completely wrong. Everything about them is egregious. Hundreds pf "hapless bystanders get killed because of these inhumane drone attacks. How can people agree to the use of drones. They are counter productive. These drone attacks are causing more unrest. More innocent people die in drone attacks then militants. Drone attacks encroaches on the sovereignty of other countries. It is also a violation of numerous human rights. Bombs are mercilessly dropped on towns because there might be a suspicion that a few militants are present there. It is a crime against humanity.

Err you crayzy. Drone attacks are counter productive. You are producing more terrorists by engaging in drone attacks. People who have relatives who are mercilessly killed by drones are more likely to engage in militant activities. America should stop acting like a global policeman and stop interfering with other countries. Let other countries decide for themselves, instead of America meddling with other countries so they can benefit from their oil or other resources. Maybe Norway has nuclear weapons..... Lets invade to check... Good idea. Right!!

Err you crayzy. Drone attacks are counter productive. You are producing more terrorists by engaging in drone attacks. People who have relatives who are mercilessly killed by drones are more likely to engage in militant activities. America should stop acting like a global policeman and stop interfering with other countries. Let other countries decide for themselves, instead of America meddling with other countries so they can benefit from their oil or other resources. Maybe Norway has nuclear weapons..... Lets invade to check... Good idea. Right!!

This article, like US policy makers, seems to assume that nobody else will be able to make effective drones anytime soon. This is almost certainly wrong. By using (advertising) drones more or less gratuitously, the US is rushing head first out of the era of conventional weapons that it has dominated for the last 70 years. Not smart.

It doesn't take much for the terrorist to use those same weapons against us. Especially now that Americans are killing family members all over the middle east, there will just be more and more terrorists to do such things.